Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court clarifies that the right to property, as guaranteed by Article 300-A of the Constitution, extends not only to citizens but also to non-citizens. The ruling emerged in the context of an ‘enemy property’ under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, emphasizing the broad scope of the term ‘person’ and the inclusive definition of ‘property’ under Article 300-A.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellant contended that an ‘enemy property’ should be exempt from municipal laws since it falls under the purview of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. The respondent argued that the Parliament enacted the said Act to ensure uniformity in dealing with enemy properties across the country. The Supreme Court considered the objects and purpose of the Act, focusing on the constitutional right to property, which, according to the Court, applies not only to citizens but also to legal or juristic persons and non-citizens.

Court’s Judgment:

The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, held that the Enemy Property Act does not exempt such properties from municipal laws as they are not vested exclusively with the Union Government. The Court emphasized that the Act aimed for uniformity in dealing with enemy properties but could not deprive true owners, even if they were enemies, without providing compensation. The Court distinguished between administration by the Custodian and the transfer of ownership, emphasizing the protection of property rights under Article 300-A.